The guidelines surrounding the whole concept of interrogation were enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in the celebrated landmark decision case of Miranda v Arizona. Popularly referred to as the Miranda warnings, the police, who are arresting persons are required to abide by the guidelines enshrined there in when conducting interrogation. These guidelines are only applicable to the police in two circumstances. These circumstances include when a suspect is either under police custody or is in custodial interrogation. It is the latter circumstance that is of interest to us in this instance. Before proceeding to examine the guidelines that undergird custodial interrogation in the United States, it is important to understand what is meant by interrogation. Custodial interrogation is the questioning that is initiated by law enforcers upon the taking of a suspect into custody or upon his deprivation of his freedom in any way, thereby precipitating the need for advice of the suspect on his applicable constitutional rights. In the 1966 case of Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court of the laid down the standards that law enforcers must meet and follow in their attempt to interrogate suspects that they hold in custody (Pearce, 2001).
The first guideline that the suspect must be warned off by the police is the right to remain silent. It is of equal importance for both law enforcers and suspects to note that the warning must come before the start of the interrogation. The effect of this is that, before the beginning of the interrogation, the suspect is not owed nor does the police owe the suspect, a Miranda warning. For instance, a request for identification of the suspect is not regarded as interrogation for the purpose of giving a warning. It is upon the commencement of questions that may implicate the suspect or relate to involvement in crime that interrogation is deemed to have begun. The police are required to give warning to the suspect just before the start of the interrogation.
The warning subsumes the rights of the suspect during interrogation. The police are obligated to warn the suspect that he has a right to remain silent throughout the interrogation and refuse to divulge any information (Pearce, 2001). Similarly, anything the suspect says at that moment would be used against him subsequently in a court of law. The police need to inform the suspect of his right to consult with an attorney, and to have him present throughout the process of interrogation. Intertwined with this right is that police are obligated to inform a suspect that he has the right to counsel even where he cannot afford one, by having the state appoint one on his behalf. It is also crucial for the police to be guided by the rule that a suspect may invoke his right to remain silent at any stage of the interrogation process, and in such an event, the interrogation must stop pronto. Any subsequent interrogation against the right of the suspect is a nullity and a breach of the constitutional right of the suspect. The same situation obtains in the event that a suspect invokes the right to counsel during the interrogation process (Kenney, 1998).
It is important to note that the guidelines on interrogation have been somewhat refined by recent case law emanating from the courts. According to the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in the year 2010, the police are entitled to initiate a second interrogation upon the lapse of two weeks after the first interrogation of a suspect who invokes his Miranda right of remaining silent. The court indicated that the police need not give another Miranda warning to the suspect before the interrogation as the initial warning is still in effect. Any admissions or information obtained by the police when the police have not given a Miranda warning to the suspect is inadmissible in a court of law and of no legal effect. Suffice to say, nothing that is said in such an instance can be used against a suspect in a court of law (Clymer, 2002).
References
Clymer, S. D. (2002). "Are Police Free to Disregard Miranda?". Yale Law Journal , 112.
Kenney, J. (1998). "Custodial Interrogation, Invocation of Right to Counsel.". Res Gestae , 42.
Pearce, G. A. (2001). "Constitutional Law—Criminal Law: The United States Supreme Court Affirms the Use of Miranda Rights by Police to Determine the Admissibility of Statements Made During Custodial Interrogation.". North Dakota Law Review , 77-81.
